Pope Francis and cardinals at the Vatican
Apparently feeling threatened by the growing popularity of progressive views on gender and sexual orientation, the Vatican is trying to promote a “positive and prudent sexual education” which stresses to students the “full original truth of masculinity and femininity.”

While cities around the world are celebrating LGBT Pride Month, the Vatican is choosing a distinctly different path. On the heels of a highly controversial message from a Catholic Bishop urging people to boycott Pride events, Church leadership released a new official document entitled “Male and Female He Created Them.”

The text reinforces the Church’s longstanding belief that homosexual relationships should not be condoned because same-sex couples cannot produce children. But it also took a further step into the culture wars by arguing that people cannot choose or change their gender as they please, because this trait is determined by one’s biological sex (and God, of course).

The Vatican insists that gender fluidity is a symptom of the “confused concept of freedom” and “momentary desires” that characterize post-modern culture. The document also outright rejects terms such as “intersex” and “transgender.”

What It Means for Catholic Education

But the document is not solely intended to clarify Catholic views on gender identity – it will also serve as a blueprint to guide Catholic teachers, parents, students, and clergy through what the church has dubbed a “sex educational crisis.”

The proposed educational reform calls for a “path of dialogue” on these issues, but also seeks to downplay modern gender theory to focus instead on the sexual “complementarity” of men and women to make babies.

It appears the Vatican is concerned about Catholic teens potentially being exposed to progressive views on gender, sexual orientation, and other “unbiblical” ideas discussed in modern sex-ed classes. And if there was any doubt as to this motive, the text further clarifies that the Church is in favor of a “positive and prudent sexual education” which stresses to students the “full original truth of masculinity and femininity.”

LGBT Reaction

LGBT Catholics immediately denounced the document, claiming it would only increase bigotry and violence against their community. Advocacy groups agree, voicing concern that an all-out rejection of LGBT identities could confuse individuals questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation. Jay Brown of the Human Rights Campaign says the Vatican’s latest stance “sends a dangerous message that anybody who experiences gender diversity is somehow less worthy.”

Potential Fissure

And although many Catholics are standing behind the Vatican, some members of the faith are choosing to break lines. “The real-life experiences of LGBT people seem entirely absent from this document,” said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest who specializes in Catholic outreach to the LGBT community.

New Ways Ministry head Francis DeBernardo believes the Vatican’s understanding of gender identity is scientifically passé and misinformed. “Gender is also biologically determined by genetics, hormones and brain chemistry — things not visible at birth. People do not choose their gender, as the Vatican claims, they discover it through their lived experiences.” He believes the Catholic Church should encourage young people to pursue this path to self-discovery, to learn for themselves “the wonderful way that God has created them.”

Debate Rages On

As it wades into the modern gender debate, does the Catholic Church have a scientific leg to stand on? Critics point out that a 2000-year-old institution with a history of questioning scientific fact – be it the earth revolving around the sun in Galileo’s times, or evolution vs. creationism in the 21st century – is perhaps not the best choice to lead a discussion over what determines masculinity and femininity.

However, supporters insist that biology doesn’t lie and that the Church is correct in its hardline approach to gender identity. Further, they applaud the Vatican for standing up to new age sex-ed programs that some believe have bent too far toward social justice and left science behind. Where do you stand?

87 comments

  1. Pastor Xal says:

    I still don’t understand how old men wearing beanies & capes hold such power over otherwise intelligent human beings. A 2000+ year old book is a guide to humans living in harmony not the end all & last word of a civilization comptemplating nuclear attacks, fossil fuel depletion & salt water intrusion. Teaching children acceptance is far better than cloaking them with tolerance. The Vatican should put its own house in order & fix internal issues of molesters & abusers hiding behind Catholic collars.

    1. Elizabeth says:

      Amen and well said

    2. Brian H says:

      Agreed. Well said.

    3. kimberly says:

      Nuclear attacks, fossil fuel depletion ,saltwater intrusion as used by socialists are for the purpose of instilling fear into people in order to gain political power over them. Nor is the Bible a “guide to harmony”.

  2. Jack Gerber says:

    What I find particularly interesting is that they have a significant minority of Catholic priests who are themselves homosexual and are attracted to young boys, Also it takes someone with a pretty strange sexuality to want to join a group that pledges to abstain from sexual contact altogether. I strongly suspect that many of the nuns are themselves lesbians even though you don’t hear much about that. The reality is, of course, that gender is a fluid line and it is actually only a small minority of people that are exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Most people are at least occasionally drawn to someone of the same sex and most homosexuals are at least occasionally drawn to someone of t he opposite sex.

    1. kimberly says:

      Gender is not fluid and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Gender is male or female and cannot be changed no matter how many drugs and how much the body is mutilated. Also, attraction has nothing to do with sex. Too many think that it is and therein lies the confusion.

      1. Minister Bill says:

        You would deny “sports” then?

        1. Minister Bill says:

          How about the persons born with two sets of genes? Hum? Where does your “belief” stand with that cupcake?

          1. kimberly says:

            inbreeding

        2. kimberly says:

          yes. if you mean that biological men not participate in female sports.

          1. Minister Bill says:

            In this particular instance I would agree. Sheer muscle mass would still be there. As to Kimberly’s trite answer. Wrong. Look it up before you “speak”. As to inbreeding. How man folks started the world cupcake?

          2. Alicia says:

            Even that is open for debate. Example: Jazz Jennings. She is now an 18 year old transgender female. She was born male, but knew from an early age that she was “different”. All of her leanings were towards the female. At 5, she insisted that she was a girl. Her parents researched the subject and decided to let her live as a female.

            Jazz was given hormone blockers to stop male puberty and she never developed the “masculine muscle mass”. So, in cases like this, I would say that she SHOULD be allowed to participate in women’s sports since there really is no advantage with muscle mass.

            Now, if a male decided later in life (after puberty), I would say that that person should NOT participate in women’s sports.

  3. Lionheart says:

    Oh well, who cares, just leave the cult if you’re still in it, and you’ll be okay. Everyone else is!

    🦁❤️

    1. kimberly says:

      How is it Lion that you’re always hanging around the sexual perversion posts? You’re a baaad boy. LOL

      Isn’t the Pope the envoy of God and everything he says goes? Funny (in a warped sense) that the gay community would object to an envoy of God acting as the voice of God when they claim to be Catholic.

      1. Lionheart says:

        🤗

        I see you join the same blog topics as myself. Birds of a feather…….. 😜

        🦁❤️

        1. kimberly says:

          Lion………….Shoving feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

          1. Elizabeth says:

            🤣

  4. Rev. Clifford Oliver says:

    This is truly the proper position for the church to take, concerning the Trinity and Ain Soph. The Ain Soph for those that are unaware, is the battle that rages within. Concerning the Male and Females aspects within both sexes.

    1. Minister Bill says:

      Sure thing. From which bible then? The plagiarized Catholic one?

  5. Dr Daniel R Thomas says:

    Transgender: Let us see what God says:

    Genesis 1:26-31 NASBS
    Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” [27] God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. [28] God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” [29] Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; [30] and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. [31] God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

    Matthew 19:4-6 NASBS
    And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, [5] and said, ‘For THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND the TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? [6] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    It seems that God created only two sexes. It appears that it is of Man that the rest have come about.

    From the New Testiment in the book of Acts, a similar situation took place. A “New Way” was being taught. And those in the seats of power did not like it.. The disciples of Jesus were teaching and spreading the Gospel to all the people. The leaders of the faith in Jeursalam did not accept this “New Way” that was being taught. They then set out to destroy this “New Way” to the extent of killing it’s leader and imprisoning its teachers and the boldest speakers. Let’s see what happened:

    Acts 5:33-39 NASBS
    But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and intended to kill them. [34] But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law, respected by all the people, stood up in the Council and gave orders to put the men outside for a short time. [35] And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you propose to do with these men. [36] For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. [37] After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he too perished, and all those who followed him were scattered. [38] So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; [39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”

    Good advice: If this transgender thing is of Man, it will be overthrown, or come apart. If however, this is from God …

    So, we shall see!

    Dr. Daniel R. Thomas. Ph.D

    1. Minister Bill says:

      Indeed. Hoist by your own statements much? HE that created Them? Hum. Standard Catholic or Christian response? We are not to understand God’s works. (long wet raspberry:.

      1. Carl Elfstrom says:

        Happy Juneteenth, especially to those of you with African ancestors. This day commemorates a very special event in our country. Freedom from slavery.

    2. Amy says:

      Why should anyone care what the bible says about anything?
      If there was a god, he made the possibility of being transgender possible. Why in hell would he condemn something he created?
      Oh right, according to the bible, he also MURDERED BABIES. Crimes against humanity.
      Well, heck. I guess you’re correct, Dr. Daniel R. Thomas, PhD. Have some ice cream.

  6. Kirk says:

    I don’t see how this document could cause confusion. It’s really straight forward. It does not say that anyone CAN’T live their life the way they want. The church just doesn’t have to recognize your opinion. Why is anybody surprised by this document?

  7. Rev. Brien says:

    Wow, where do we even go with this? Since there can be no doubt that I am going to be viewing entire chapters of the catholic bible on this, I will speak from the other side of the coin, the realistic side. It seems that the Vatican has no shame, nor humility so allow me to drop a couple of items here. First and foremost would be the 1000 years, (and still counting), of atrocities committed BY the catholic church including rape, sodomy, and genocide just to name a few, and yes the list is extensive. The Vatican has COMPLETELY walled itself off from reality. Case in point, women are considered secondary to man. Even the bible says women were created FOR MAN. Don’t believe me? How many women of power and authority have ever sat within the Vatican? The answer is none. EVER. And if you manage to come up with even one name that has, you will be stacking that one name up against 1000+ years of horrible history. So, given that, please tell me why any person of good conscious would give one damn as to what the Vatican has to say? Better yet, given its’ horrific history, how can any rational human being stand up and say that they believe in the catholic church? Faith may be blind, but noone ever said it had to be stupid.

    1. kimberly says:

      The “Catholic” church organization is based on the simple but deliberate misinterpretation of a single Bible passage (Matt 16:18). Jesus is NOT saying that he would give Peter the authority to build an “immortal church”. Matt 16:18 is Jesus prophesying of his return at which time he would assemble his elect (the VERY few recorded in the Bible with whom he or God personally chose to do a work throughout the ages….not “Christians” or “Catholics”) and it would be those elect who would never know the grave again (ie/death). The Catholic church is a lie. Protestant church organizations are a lie. Jesus has YET to build his church and it will be comprised of members like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ruth, the prophets, Moses, the apostles, Paul and others. Not Catholics. Not protestants. Not Muslims. etc etc etc.

      1. Minister Bill says:

        Kimberly and Rev. Brien? Thank you. I am not formally as well read as you folks but I have been doing some digging around and studying on my own of late. I find no arguments with your statements. Much in the “accepted” bible isn’t in the original source material anyhow. That much I have read up on. A lot of the “King James VERSION of the bible” that is the accepted tome if from Jewish books and reference material. Therefore, uhm, aren’t we ALL Jewish then and the rest are just copyright infringement of a sort? Yes, mostly tongue in cheek but still valid. Those that doubt? Look it up. The sources for the “RELIGIONS” are far older tan you believe.

      2. Rev. Brien says:

        Kimberly, you are correct. I seem to recall a pasage, I will probably get it wrong, it goes…” Do not build temples unto me” , seems to me that just about EVERY organized religion has blown that one. Anyway, I have said before and I will say again, it is not the content of a thing but the content of your heart and soul that make you a good or bad human. peace

      3. Carl Elfstrom says:

        Let’s form a mob of ministers, and torch the Vatican!!!

  8. John Owens says:

    Apparently the catholic church is not 100% opposed to facts.

  9. Linda says:

    In the beginning God created them, ***male and female he created them.***

    Perhaps God created us all with male AND female characteristics. A few men like to cook, decorate homes, etc., and a few women like to build things, even do boxing, etc… and many are heterosexuals. Isn’t there a little of that in all of us… liking something that is generally attributed to the other gender? I know some ladies that even like to fish! yuck!

    The original manuscript from which the KJ was taken, says God took a “side” of mankind (not a “rib”) and made woman-kind so they would be a helpmate for each other. This is attributing certain roles to genders that “TEND” to be more conducive to that gender, to make life easier for newly stabilizing communities… trying to leave being hunters and gatherers. Attributing roles to each gender was creating a helpmate for each other.

    IMO, placing condemnation on the very few NOT prone to this model was never its intention. Roles attributed to genders was only meant to HELP humankind instead of condemn them. The “law ” was made for man, not man for the “law.” Think about it, if we took away roles attributed to genders, being transgender would be a non-issue. Transgender is a tiny population crisscrossing a model founded on gender proclivities based on the “majority” of the population… not based on or meant for everyone. There are exceptions to every rule. If your oxen is stuck in the ditch on Sunday, are you going to leave the poor thing there? There are exceptions to the rules and that’s perfectly okay, isn’t it?

    1. Lionheart says:

      Yes Linda, us males do have female characteristics, but apart from our nipples 😜, we do have a very sensitive side, much like females.

      It’s interesting that many like to quote from the King James edition of the Bible. A man that few know was widely reported to be gay. I wonder how many of the “celibate” monastical scribes responsible for transcribing literature were also gay. Could any of their leanings, over the decades and centuries, have had any input into their interpretations/translations? They had the power to do that due to the illiteracy of much of the population. I guess we’ll never know.

      🦁❤️

      1. Minister Bill says:

        What were pageboys, squires and scribes for anyhow in a male dominated society?
        Whores and towns where few and far between.

        1. Linda says:

          I don’t know about squires, scribes, or pageboys, but references in the Bible condemning homosexuality was actually referencing a practice called pederasty, where a poor family would give a successful businessman their prepubescent son to teach him his business in trade for sexual favors.

          That’s why the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality always follows prostitution… because pederasty is prostitution… and somehow, in translations the word pederasty was changed to homosexuality.

      2. kimberly says:

        wrong. we have HUMAN characteristics. cooking has nothing to do with biology. And, one of the problems you’ve highlighted is that society has forced men to no longer act like men. So-called transgenders are a symptom. Not the real problem. A society that turns men into mental eunuchs is a society that has lost its way. So-called “gender fluidity” is just another aspect of societal chaos. And man was not made in the image of an absolutely singular God. He was made in his own unique image, in the image of godS (plural).

        Genesis 1:26
        And God (OF gods…absolutely singular) said, Let us make man in OUR (godS) image, after OUR (godS) likeness:

        Genesis 1:27
        So God created man in his (man’s) own image, in the image of godS (plural) created he him; male and female created he them.

        1. kimberly says:

          Trinitarians try to use this passage where God is using “we” and “us” to “prove” trinitarianism. However, such proof is by inferring polytheism. not trinitarianism. What this passage does prove is that God is a God OF gods and such a title is showing God to be absolutely singular and existing in a reality (Kingdom) of immortal subjects (Host…from which the angels are appointed..NOT “created”). Mankind is not the image of a God “unity” as commonly taught.

  10. Linda says:

    Lionheart, IMO, both genders have both gender preferences to some degree, regardless if you are gay or straight. Females too… I love hiking, canoes, watching MMA competition, etc. BTW, transgender has nothing to do with sexual preferences. That’s a whole separate issue. Transgender is only when one’s mental role preferences have crisscrossed with the roles society has attributed to their physical gender. A transgender can be gay or straight. Example: A male to female transgender may consider herself to be lesbian because she still likes females, as she may have when she was male. She could also be straight, now as a female, preferring males. Sexual preference is independent of self gender identification.

    As I understand it, King James did us an immense favor! The Catholics didn’t let people read the Bible because they felt the layman couldn’t understand it!!! King James put it in a language we could all understand and gave all access to it. Researching the resources the KJV used, it is a tremendous task. Many times one word can have 15 meanings or more! Then researching that one word back to its prime root meaning to gain further comprehension adds more options to choose. The ancient written words weren’t nearly as articulate as they were when they wrote the KJV, (that’s why I think they used a lot of metaphors), and we are much more articulate than the times of the KJV. The KJV Bible use to say that they knew their were errors in their translation but they did the best they could. Recent reproductions of the Bible tend to take that part out.

    As for being gay, as I’ve expressed on an earlier thread on this site, I think the NT of the Bible has nothing bad to say about being gay. IMO, people have just put their own spin on a few verses to promote their own agendas. BTW, I am a totally straight and boring female that has no dog in this fight. I’m shocked no one in my family is gay either. I just study the Bible to find what it really says and find it quite an amazing book. From my experience in researching the Bible, it’s easy to see why many say it’s the greatest story ever told.

    1. Minister Bill says:

      Linda? May I call you a friend? I love your comment.

      1. Linda says:

        Minister Bill, my friend, thank you.

        As I posted earlier… I wonder what the Catholics are going to do about having made Joan of Arc a saint? Joan of Arc was transgender, or do they have another spin on that? Will they take her sainthood away? Just curious….

  11. Rod Gesner says:

    And “God Created” Hermaphrodites those with both organs Many of which are Then Mutilated at Birth by Prudish Doctors and Fearfull Parents Before they have the Right to Pick one or Both for themselves…
    And Many of “Gods Creatures” Without our “Faith” Confused minds Turn to Homosexual Behaviours in times of Overpopulation..
    Which Humankind is Facing and Therefore Adapting..
    The Catholic View is Put forth By Old men that Ike To Dress up in Fine Gowns Fancy Jewelry and Funny Hats; But It’s all Good;) Cause Only They Know Gods WIll???

    1. Minister Bill says:

      I have little to say here. Though not terribly eloquent myself I think you have summed it up well.

    2. kimberly says:

      God didn’t create hermaphrodites. Man did. And, there are so few as to make any justification for homosexuality meaningless.

      1. Linda says:

        Kimberly, I thought God created EVERYTHING… and saw it was good. Everything that was created, was created by God for God, right?

        1. kimberly says:

          God created everything that was created. There exists a far more permanent reality which the Bible describes as the everlasting Kingdom in which God is King in absolute singularity but not alone in eternal existence. Physical abnormalities arise from mankind’s actions against God. Not from when God created mankind.

          1. Linda says:

            Kimberly, EVERYTHING that was created was by and also “for” God, right? From the very beginning a plan was set in motion with the end in mind, and God said it was good. How could there be any parts of God against Himself?

            God is first and foremost a singularity, represented in a plural existence at this time. If in the beginning there was only God, then ALL things came out of God and therefore must be part of God.

            Is your statement, “Physical abnormalities arise from mankind’s actions against God,” your opinion / theory or is it founded on scripture? If on scripture, may I ask which one is the basis for this position? Thank you my friend.

          2. kimberly says:

            Linda dear. you’re looking at the creation from a human-centric perspective. That is wrong. The creation was actually created for the devil and his fellow angels. It was a test of obedience for them which God knew they would fail. Mankind and the Genesis event (which was not the initial creation but a terraforming) was “plan B” billions of years after the “creation”. Mankind (or some of us) will at some point replace those angels who disobeyed. The genius of God is astounding. He created life originally as giant repositories of biomatter (dinosaurs), told the angels (who were appointed out of an uncreated Host) to take care of it. They thought it beneath them to be “dinosaur herders” and attempted to “go home” (back to heaven). Of course they were thrown down to await judgement. In the meantime, the prehistoric ecosystem was buried beneath the earth to support a human population explosion and mankind was created with God’s Son to come down and account for mankind’s sin so mortality could eventually be sloughed off in that day of the disobedient angel’s judgement. So, God had all this planned out all because he saw in some of His eternal subjects the potential for prideful sin. However, it took the creation to bring that sin to fruition. Pure genius on God’s part.

          3. Linda says:

            Kimberly, you posted, “That is wrong. The creation was actually created for the devil and his fellow angels. It was a test of obedience for them which God knew they would fail.
            Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2019/06/vatican-rejects-transgender-identity-in-new-official-document/#4PohTo3SgrHUY7OA.99” .

            What resources support that position?

            Is your premise based on a common false notion that Lucifer is Satan or the devil? There is no Biblical support for that claim. I have no idea how you could have constructed that “theory” in your post.

            I go by Biblical teachings written for man, to bring Divine Spiritual insights to us. It is not from man’s perspective but offering man God’s perspective.

            God created everything for his plan, including the devil. “Everything” works towards the glory of God to those that love the Lord. Satan is the tempter, but can only tempt us to act on a lie we believe. If we do so, we get the repercussions of our actions until we don’t do that any more. Satan / devil is part of the purification process… the guy that weeds the garden. Fire and damnation is nothing more than purification and judgement guiding us into Truth. Satan is part of God’s plan… as is everything else.

            The Buddhist say there is no good and evil, only a continuum from ignorance into enlightenment. The NT Biblical teachings support that too. Sin only means missing the mark, we made a mistake.

  12. William Waugh says:

    I am surprised that no one has invoked the (yen/yang) vision of human existance. Two everswirling and interactive base components of all that is. There surely is a spot on the disk for everyone to sit. .. . …clearly “god”‘s tool for the living (all life) natural selection or evolution produces results all along the sexual spectrum. Personally, I don’t think we should “talk up” the dynamics of gender fluidity. But, acceptance is just acknowledgment of reality. Of course the Vatican knows this and chooses to reinforce historical roles of male and female. Just in case nobody noticed, in the case of human history, the strictly male and female genders have always occupied the vast majority. The big bulky leading aspect of the yen/yang swirl. ………in a world that tries to cater to everyone, if you are breathing you have rights….ostensibly…..depending on what government you were born into. Clearly the governments that execute gays and such are not the “enlightened” folks we wish they were…….I think, this comment thread so far has ignored global dynamics.

  13. Carl Elfstrom says:

    It was once described to me, a teaching of yin yang, by retired U.S. Army lieutenant Colonel Robert Ellison (a good friend), when I was nineteen years old, that all men and women contain both masculine and feminine characteristics, and we function best when we accept that and maintain balance between them. Different people do that in different ways. Bob Ellison had been married for several years, had children and grandchildren, and was very good friends with his ex-wife, but when I knew him, and for most of the rest of his life, he owned a very successful gay bar in Galveston called the Kon Tiki.

    1. William Waugh says:

      Absolutly right Carl. See my post, somwhere on here.

  14. Linda says:

    Hi Kimberly… Don’t you think we have human characteristics based on our biology? Why do you think females have “tended” to be the ones that stay at home, cook, take care of children, mend / make clothes, and such across most of all the cultures since the advent of stabilized communities? Equally so, why have men been the ones that “tend” to provide the food and protection for the family? Are you saying that has nothing to do with our biology? I am suggesting that the degree of these innate tendencies are different in each person yet still there is an overall concept that applies to the majority of the population. I believe this thread is referring to a very small minority that have innate preferences that crisscross this general model that is solely based on the majority. There are probably exceptions to the model based on the majority, right?

    I’m confused where you referenced I highlighted that society has forced men to no longer act like men. (I suppose you have a model of what a man is “suppose” to act like?) If you got that impression from my post then there has been a miscommunication. I am suggesting that we allow people to be who they are, have their right to the pursuit of happiness, even if they fall in the middle of the spectrum or crisscross this model entirely. As long as they respect themselves and others, what is wrong with that? Are you suggesting that society force people in the minority to be someone they are not, if they are hurting no one? What good would come from being so oppressive about that?

    The verses you referenced in Genesis above, was supposedly written about 6,000 years ago. This was the cradle of civilization and yes, I believe there is a lot of pagan influence in the Bible… the gods. I think Hindu was one of the first religions following animism, and even they believed there was one God but many faces of that God… and depicted specific attributes through many gods. Even so, our one God, in which we were formed in that likeness was both male and female. If you look at the lexicons from which the KJV was taken, God is often expressed as God/Goddess. God has both masculine and feminine energy and aren’t you saying we were all made in that likeness, having both masculine and feminine energy? If you look at ancient paintings of the Hindu people and their gods, one of the oldest cultures, you might find they tend to look quite androgynous. So, are you saying we were made in their image? If so, then don’t we agree?

    I wonder how the Catholic church will now explain how they made Joan of Arc a saint since they now take the position that transgender is not of God. The Catholic church back tracks quite often. One day you can only have fish on Fridays, then you can have whatever you want on Friday. They back tracked on all the planets and stars orbiting the earth too, but unfortunately they changed their minds after they killed Bruno, chastised Copernicus, and jailed Galileo for suggesting we live in a solar system . I suspect they will back track on this transgender stand also… after ruining many peoples’ lives. *sigh*

    1. kimberly says:

      masculinity is no longer something to be proud of in this society.

      The Feminization of Men……………………
      Making Men Wussies For Money.
      50/50 Relationships Don’t Work.
      The Truth About Why Women Like “Pretty Boys”.
      What’s Good for the Goose is Not Good for the Gander.
      Women Are Actually Happier With Sexist Men.

  15. Linda says:

    Kimberly, Kimberly, Kimberly… of course you are entitled to your own opinion… but, we are NOT talking about making men into anything. What is suggested is for us and the person to accept them as they “are.” Otherwise we are “trying” to make “some” people something they are NOT. Trying to make a few into what “someone else” thinks they should be isn’t working. What’s wrong with letting these few people be who they really are if they are hurting no one? I don’t understand your issue with that.

    BTW, how do you define what is masculine? I noticed your post seems to be focused on males, so are you okay with some females having more masculine characteristics than feminine ones? If so, I’m curious as to why you think it is okay for females but not males. If so, is it because those females are lessening our competition for males? LOL… just kidding on that last question. 🙂

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      I know that many great artists were gay. And art could be a feminine characteristic. But even so, how does any of that relate to Michelangelo Bonarroti’s obsession and/or fetish with muscular men with tiny penises. It at least seems like he would have made such a famous king as David, better endowed.

  16. Linda says:

    Carl, perhaps he wanted to make himself look better to his private encounters, by relative comparison? (kidding)

    Michael Angelo, Divinci, and many artists were gay. It seems evidence is suggesting that even Abraham Lincoln was gay, as it was widely known he spent many nights in the same bed with this one gentleman. Probably many more nights with him than with his wife, which was probably a marriage of convenience. Anyway, I agree with history’s rendition that Lincoln was a great president.

    Again, sexual preference is a totally separate issue than self identification of one’s own sex and being transgender. Chaz said one’s sex is determined by what’s between the ears, not by what’s between the legs. A bit crass? I guess he was just trying to make a point. I think the gay people we’ve mentioned were probably in harmony with their sex identification matching their physical gender. Now Joan of Arc may be a different story… possibly preferring to be male, and the Catholic’s designated her / him a saint.

  17. Rod Gesner says:

    My Grandfather: (a Disciples of Christ Minister and Missionary) had a Great Parable that points out the Arrogance of the Catholic Church in it’s Overbearing Judgments of People:
    a Young Novice in his Studies of the Saints; comes across a confusing pattern that Troubles him…
    So he goes to his Priest;” Father; I am Troubled by what I read of the history of the Saints”
    “And What Troubles you My Son”?
    Many of Our Saints were once Denounced as Heretics; Died or were Killed and Damned for Eternity; But Then later their Good Works Were Praised and They were Granted Sainthood…”
    ” Yes,That is true.”
    “But How Can They Be Brought out of hell and Sent to Heaven as Saints; if God has Damned them for Eternity??”
    ” Oh My, You Poor Confused Child; Do you Really Think that God Does What We Tell Him To???!
    Thus this Parable Solves the Paradox 😉

  18. Rod Gesner says:

    Oh and By The Way; I thought Joans Great Sin was Wanting to Be a Warrior in a Time that No Mere Woman Was to Raise her hand in Anger or Mortal Combat against any man? 😉

    1. Rod Gesner says:

      Several centuries Later, The Great White Father’s (USA;) Have Determined That Yes; Women Can fight To Defend Their Country and Kill The Infidels;)

  19. Ben says:

    The Catholic church needs to deal with the log in it’s own eye, before looking at the splinter in it’s neighbors eye.
    The hypocrisy of the Catholic church, is INSANE. It’s full of pedophiles and rapists. Many of these child rapists are attacking same sex children.
    Worse the church hides these criminals, shuffling them around to protect them.
    It needs to excommunicate these priests and reassess it’s own issues, before passing judgment on others.
    It needs to stop oppressing women and remember the words of Christ.
    We can discuss the Religious Right another time …

  20. tom b says:

    Respectfully…it is obvious the catholic church does not accept God in God’s entirety; it picks and chooses, rather than acknowledge that God creates everyone…Peace…Tom

  21. Kim says:

    God created mankind. Men took it upon themselves to do evil in spite of knowing better and are accountable. God is not.

    1. Lionheart says:

      Well, I don’t see how little children took it upon themselves, and also animals, to do evil, but the god of the Bible still killed them, so in my book, I hold that god accountable for being really stupid with low morals.

      Just because of his mythical godhood it’s no excuse for being a jealous bully with a huge ego. I understand his ways are not ours but I’m not interested in that type of godhood excuse. He still deserves a punch on his nose. I doubt a goddess would be so stupid.

      I’m not inviting him for tea any time soon.

      🦁❤️

      1. kimberly says:

        Lion dear. You just don’t understand. Nobody has died. yet. The people God chose were the Israelites and they were directed in such a way as to bring Messiah into the world. Not only for Israel but for all mankind.

        1. Lionheart says:

          I totally understand where you are coming from, I think, but the reality is, they did die. Even if your belief is the right one, they still suffered. Have you ever seen anyone suffer Kim? I have! It is not the most pleasant experience at all. They suffered, they died, and it was painful. If you are wrong, they still suffered, and died….some in horrible pain. Paint it how you wish…they mortally died.

          Children didn’t need to go through that experience. Next time I’m in the presence of anyone mortally dying I’ll try and tell them that it’s all okay…they aren’t dying…and when they are gone I’ll tell their loved ones it’s okay, they didn’t die, they might look as though they are dead, but they didn’t die. Somehow, I just get that feeling my words won’t be very well received.

          I have written record from one of my ancestors of the first world war where he was in a trench and the fellow next to him had half of his head blown away. He died Kay. No matter what you want to say, he mortally died. Can you imagine the trauma my ancestor went through? That was very real. The trauma is mostly not with the ones who have died but with those who are left behind. Your god is a very uncaring bully, who has no thought for those that suffer at his hand!

          Please forgive me, but in realty, I think you have been misguided and I don’t think you understand, even though you are convinced you do.

          🦁♥️

          1. Kim says:

            Lion….surely you know that suffering isn’t the cause of death. Some live for over 100 years and quietly pass into sleep. Others live in nothing but total misery only to die in slow agony. You just can’t judge life or death based on the characteristics of mortality. Most of the new testament was written to people facing the colosseum and being torn apart by lions. But the crux of the matter is that nobody dies until God says so. Regardless of how they got into the grave.

          2. Lionheart says:

            I’m sure that suffering isn’t the cause of death, though shock as a result of suffering could be. The main concern is those that are left behind. Let’s just suppose that your god really killed all those first born children during the dispute he had with Pharaoh. Can you imagine the trauma he caused for those families? There had to have been a better way than killing them. He could have taken Pharaohs sight for a few days just as an example. I realize you apologists will find an excuse to exonerate your mythical gods decision, but it was a poor choice by him.

            Fortunately, I doubt that ever happened anyway, along with many other tales written into the Bible.

            There is only one life, and this is it. That’s the beauty of being a secular humanist, we live for today and make the best of this one life for those we leave behind to benefit from the fruits of our labor. If there happened to be something else after this life, that would be very nice, but being as no one knows for sure, I’m happy with this one life.

            I realize that some, like your good self, will say they definitely know there is another life after this one, they don’t, they have just convinced themselves they do, and that’s okay if it helps them get through this life. I wouldn’t want to take that belief away from them if they find peace and solace from that belief.

            🦁♥️

          3. Kim says:

            Lion….God gave the Egyptions a choice and even told them what would happen. Some people just don’t get it.

        2. Lionheart says:

          How could he give people a choice if he doesn’t exist. Personally, I think fairies would have made a better choice than your imaginary god.

          🦁❤️

          1. kimberly says:

            God doesn’t give choice. Mankind just think they have a choice. But, everyone goes to the grave (Adam’s curse) and we all grow old and sick (Eve’s curse) to await the day of judgement. You and I are going to die dear regardless of whether you see fairies or not.

            Luke 12:45
            But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming (GRACE); and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;

          2. Lionheart says:

            Yes I agree with you. You and I are going to die, but not because of any imaginary god, or a fictitious Adam and Eve, but it’s totally okay if you wish to believe that. Many people need that belief structure to help them get through life. Sadly, they also push that onto the very young minds of children, telling them they are born in sin.

            Emotional/psychological abuse is abuse of the worst kind, especially to children. I had a grandson of mine commit suicide only two months ago aged 19 because he couldn’t deal with the religious crap causing guilt that had been thrown at him throughout his life. His parents and three siblings are now left trying to come to terms with their huge loss. They too are now left with the guilt of wondering what they did wrong in his indoctrination. If it hadn’t been for all the religious dogma they’d pushed into his head he would more than likely be alive today. Please don’t say he’s not dead because that’s the sickest bull manure anyone can say.

            🦁❤️

          3. Kim says:

            Lion. Once again you rant against religion. You’re right to do so. However that isn’t justification for atheism.

          4. Lionheart says:

            I have more justification for atheism than you do for accepting it.

            My justification in atheism is that there is no evidence that any god exists. The difference between you and me is that I could be very easily proved wrong, along with all other atheists, just by your god showing up. That’s all he has to do and I’d accept it.

            However, on the other hand, nothing will convince you he doesn’t exist even though there is no evidence for him/her/it because of your deep indoctrination.

            🦁❤️

          5. kimberly says:

            Lion. The acknowledgement of the existence of deity is hardwired into the human genome. No civilization or tribe for the last 30,000 years has been without some form of deity. Science even postulates a “big bang” (not a big “tri-bang”). And it is science that postulates existence without proof. An existence that is beyond humanity’s ability to sense in any way. Examples are aliens, universal Truth, unknown Reality. What you’re attempting to reject is 30,000 years of human intuition that includes the highest level of scientific method. Not God.

          6. Lionheart says:

            The acknowledgment and existence of a deity is not hardwired into our brain from a genome perspective. What you are in fact referring to Kim is consciousness. When that genomic switch of consciousness was “activated” mankind had the unquenchable desire for knowledge. The enquiring mind dreams up systems of possibilities. Belief systems come from those possibilities amidst all forms of enquiry, all created by consciousness.

            🦁❤️

          7. kimberly says:

            Lion…when you fall, you fall hard my friend. With just a few tweeks, you gave the best explanation that homosexuality (not the existence of God) could not possibly be genetic that I’ve ever seen.

            The acknowledgment and existence of homosexuality is not hardwired into the brain from a genome perspective. What it does in fact originate from is consciousness. When the genomic switch of consciousness is “activated” one has an unquenchable desire for curiosity. The enquiring mind then dreams up systems of possibilities. Belief systems come from those possibilities amidst all forms of enquiry. Homosexuality is created by consciousness and desire.

          8. Lionheart says:

            Kim, I only fall as hard as you don’t understand. You are confusing consciousness with feelings and desires. Animals have feelings and desires, hence the reason they reproduce, and some have same sex feelings. This has nothing to do with the consciousness I’m referring to.

            🦁♥️

          9. kimberly says:

            So you’re going back on your statement Lion???

            I figgered so but hoped otherwise. Animals don’t have feelings or desires. They have instinct. And a puppy humping my leg isn’t an act of homosexuality.

          10. Lionheart says:

            Of course they have feelings Kim. For you to say otherwise shows you’ve never owned an animal, or just don’t understand. Why else do you think dogs for instance wag their tails? They are happy and get excited. They will even wait for their master at the gravesite. This isn’t instinct Kim, these are feelings of endearment.

            🦁❤️

          11. Minsister Bill says:

            Lionheart! I like it! Here you go. https://www.ancient.eu/religion/
            Kimberly? Religion is NOT hardwired into the human genome. If you believe that you need to study science and biology a bit more. Our current views or religion are based on hypocrisy and plagiarism and fantasy. Has the bible been proven? NO. Have parts of the bible been proven geographically? YES. Why not? It was written by the folks that lived there. Proof of my concepts? Nearly daily, “man” yet again finds something “newer’ or “of better understanding” or ” of a more profound revelation” on some subject. Man in all his arrogance still insists that there is no other life in the universe, no? How arrogant is that? There are about two thousand stars visible to the naked eye alone. Make the assumption that only one percent have planets. Make the assumption that one half of one percent of those have some type of life we could recognize. Alone? Sure. Hell of a taxi ride to the neighbor now isn’t it?

          12. kimberly says:

            sister bill….I never said religion was hardwired into the human genome. I said the acknowledgement of God’s existence is hardwired into the human genome. big diff.

  22. William Waugh says:

    Dang, Kimberly! Your intelligent and affirmed responses bite don’t they? Excellent work. ……..are there two lionharts? He apparently often answers his own comments……..or am I not evolved enough to understand?

    1. Kim says:

      Objectivity is often seen as aggression for some reason. I think Lion just places his posts in convenient spots.

    2. T'Keren Valmaz says:

      Wee Willy, there is nota bit of wit nor intellect in any christian apologists statements. Thats why they are always in every non christian circle mocked for what they are, blithering fools.

      You see in any debate, one of the requirements is one can not under any circumstance use what is called an unverified view as a fact. All things concerning the existence of any deity are just that.

      On top of that every thing Kimbo the bimbo states proves the falsehood of her faith. Because as others have pointed out, true christian women, following the actual ancient form of their faith, are never allowed to question, speak back to or even to without first being asked to speak, by ANY man. They are not allowed to defy any mans will, must submit to every mans will, and accept anything done to them and their only recourse is to pray to their god for mercy and salvation.

      Now I personally view the OT and NT in every version as what it actually is, propaganda designed to brainwash the ignorant masses. However as a theologian and scholar of history I seem to often grasp the actual tenants of various faiths better then the ignorant fools that claim to adhere to the dogma of their chosen church.

      In this case its simple as this A christian woman is always in the wrong when challenging any man for any reason under any circumstance. Even in the case of self defense. A real christian woman would without a word or cry accept being raped because that is what her god demands of her. Pure and utter submission to all men.

      Hence why I pity every woman who chooses such a form of faith and joins such churches.

      Hence why she is no longer even worthy of responding to, she simply is another faithless liar claiming to walk by Faith, when she has no true belief in her supposed god.

  23. BillK2 says:

    I am confused about the concept of original truth. Is original truth facts such as there was only one man and woman in the beginning and she was created from the man’s rib? If I were to walk in any direction long enough would I fall off the edge of the earth? Is there only two conditions true or false? Or can what we perceive to be truth change with additional information?
    I left the RCC because they denied my son, refused to acknowledge their complicity in the destruction of so many young lives, and by the destruction their authoritarian corruption creates.
    Like those who define Christianity by political beliefs, they will pass through a slow agonizing demise, unless they change to accept that there is no original truth, only truth, that absolutism and the harm of others including the powerless does not contribute to their argument.

    Matthew 18:6 King James Version (KJV)
    6 But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

    1. kimberly says:

      Belief is irrelevant and can change at the whim of the person holding it. Facts are fact only under specific conditions, including the time postulated. Truth however is absolutely singular, universal, eternal, infinite and incomprehensible in its entirety. So belief is irrelevant, facts only lead to more facts and Truth exists only by intuitive acknowledgement that it exists.

      1. Lionheart says:

        And hence the reason no one knows for sure any god, fairy, Sasquatch, or Loch Ness monster really exists.

        🦁❤️

Leave a Comment